MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791887478 · doi:10.1242/jcs.214478

Genetic dissection of the phosphoinositide cycle in <i>Drosophila</i> photoreceptors

2018· article· en· W2791887478 on OpenAlexafffund
Che Liu, Murali K. Bollepalli, Samuel V. Long, Sabrina Asteriti, Julie Tan, Julie A. Brill, Roger Hardie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cell Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Toronto
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCancer Research Society
KeywordsBiologyDrosophila (subgenus)Dissection (medical)Evolutionary biologyGeneticsAnatomyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Phototransduction in Drosophila is mediated by phospholipase C-dependent hydrolysis of PIP2­, and is an important model for phosphoinositide signalling. Although generally assumed to operate by generic machinery conserved from yeast to mammals, some key elements of the phosphoinositide cycle have yet to be identified in Drosophila photoreceptors. Here, we used transgenic flies expressing fluorescently tagged probes (P4M and TbR332H), which allow in vivo quantitative measurements of PI4P and PIP2 dynamics in photoreceptors of intact living flies. Using mutants and RNA interference for candidate genes potentially involved in phosphoinositide turnover, we identified Drosophila PI4KIIIα (CG10260) as the PI4-kinase responsible for PI4P synthesis in the photoreceptor membrane. Our results also indicate that PI4KIIIα activity requires rbo (the Drosophila orthologue of Efr3) and CG8325 (orthologue of YPP1), both of which are implicated as scaffolding proteins necessary for PI4KIIIα activity in yeast and mammals. However, our evidence indicates that the recently reported central role of dPIP5K59B (CG3682) in PIP2 synthesis in the rhabdomeres should be re-evaluated; although PIP2 resynthesis was suppressed by RNAi directed against dPIP5K59B, little or no defect was detected in a reportedly null mutant (dPIP5K18).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cell ScienceSame topicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207